Whether the district court erred by upholding portions of the "soft money" provision (section 101) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), Pub. L. No. 107-155, 166 Stat. 81, because it constitutes an invalid exercise of Congress' power to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution; violates the First Amendment or the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment; or is unconstitutionally vague.

Whether the district court erred by upholding portions of the "electioneering communications" provisions (sections 201, 203, 204, and 311), of BCRA, because they violate the First Amendment or the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, or are unconstitutionally vague.

Whether the district court erred by holding nonjusticiable challenges to, and upholding, portions of the "advance notice" provisions of BCRA (sections 201 and 212), because they violate the First Amendment.

Whether the district court erred by holding nonjusticiable challenges to, and upholding, the "coordination" provisions of BCRA (sections 202, 211, and 214), because they violate the First Amendment.

Whether the district court erred by holding nonjusticiable challenges to, and upholding, the "attack ad" provision of BCRA (section 305), because it violates the First Amendment.